British public back a ban on burqa by two to one, poll finds - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Saints;50983272]When your religion openly has its own law system (Sharia Law), I'd say it was pretty political.[/QUOTE] are you actually arguing that islam is a political party within the UK because that's what the political uniform law is meant to deal with, and [I]specifically fascist and paramilitary entities[/I] at that.

[QUOTE=FalloutAddict;50983243]Funny how alot of people in this thread say this is bad but you don't complain when places like the United Arab Emirates see public displays of affection as a crime that can land you in one of their nasty prisons, which alot people who go on holiday there don't even realise until their life is fucking ruined by that bullshit. How about let the British public decide what it wants, yeah? At least we don't go throwing people in prison for kissing.[/QUOTE] What? Those laws are abominable. We are protesting this because we don't want to see their fucking counterparts made here. We don't want the West to adopt policies that bring it [B]closer[/B] to the rule of theocracies like Saudi Arabia -- restricting personal freedoms by legislating the moral values and traditions and religious beliefs that its citizens must live their lives by. I'm just as opposed to any legislation banning this sort of clothing as I am to legislation [I]enforcing[/I] it, and for the exact same reasons.

There will always be clothing banned because it is associated with ideology the people or the government doesn't like. It is shit but get over it

[QUOTE=burgerdemon;50983283]There will always be clothing banned because it is associated with ideology the people or the government doesn't like. It is shit but get over it[/QUOTE] "i have literally no reason to defend this because all of the reasons have been shot down therefore deal with xD"

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50983173]Burqas are religious garments, not "political uniforms." [U]You guys[/U] don't seem to have [I]any[/I] problem with nuns and monks and Christian churches wearing religious garb. Why is that?[/QUOTE] you are expressing implications that are unfounded... the way you structured that reveals you have[B] caricaturised and demonised the opposition [/B]to your argument and are[B] no longer capable of cpmprehending a reasonable argument[/B]. if the last reformation never got rid if the religious demand to wear the habit, id oppose to it just as much for the same reasons... Islam still has their habit, and as soon as they are no longer religiously mandatory (through a reformation one kind or the other) i will stop attacking the use of a burka or hijab. that however does not mean i think; - the hijab or burka should be illegal - the state should reveal color in religious matters - the burka is not a safety concern - the idea behind the burka is compatible with western values.

[QUOTE=Saints;50983272]When your religion openly has its own law system (Sharia Law), I'd say it was pretty political.[/QUOTE] The Church of England [i]today[/i] has ecclesiastical courts. In the past they dictated divorce, wills/inheritance, defamation, and so on. Today, they're used to formally interpret canon law [i]unrelated to British legislation[/i] and to punish clergymen and other members of the church. Many Muslim countries that ""have sharia law"" use that law exclusively for things like divorce proceedings and marital disputes, Bangladesh being a good example. England quite literally has a [i]state church[/i] with [i]private courts used to levy extrajudicial punishments on church members[/i]. They use canon law, not civil law or criminal law, and can levy punishments against clergy like simony, heresy, schism, and so on. These are [i]still technically in operation[/i]. Nowadays, ecclesiastical crime refers to misappropriation of donation funds. If someone donates to a church and a clergymember spends 20 grand on a strip club, [i]they are tried in religious courts using a different system of law than any other British court[/i]. Sharia's about as worrying as canon law in the Church of England. Meaning it isn't.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50983235]Are you high right now? These are the ravings of man in a fever state. A woman wearing clothes that do not reveal her face or body to you is not a violation of your personal rights. Your freedom of expression does not extend to forcing women to dress in a way that you find pleasing and comfortable.[/QUOTE] a person deliberately withholding their person from participating in society but still participating in society is infringing the personal right to confront the people i talk to and to establish their identity. in other words, "i should have a right to see the face of who i am forced to associate with, just as i have the right to face my public accuser." that is his argument.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50983290]that however does not mean i think; - the idea behind the burka is compatible with western values.[/QUOTE] Ah yes those codified and standardized "values" that everyone in the West shares, and which definitely cannot include "the right to express yourself in a way which does not infringe upon the rights of others."

[QUOTE=burgerdemon;50983283]There will always be clothing banned because it is associated with ideology the people or the government doesn't like. It is shit but get over it[/QUOTE] yeah tell 4.5% of the united kingdom's population to "get over" being trampled on because of the intent to make dumb laws out of fear over something trivial

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50983287]"i have literally no reason to defend this because all of the reasons have been shot down therefore deal with xD"[/QUOTE] I never defended this Just there never has really existed a society where clothing isn't controled by the populus or the rulers so what's the point in fighting the will of the people

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50983290]you are expressing implications that are unfounded... the way you structured that reveals you have[B] caricaturised and demonised the opposition [/B]to your argument and are[B] no longer capable of cpmprehending a reasonable argument[/B]. if the last reformation never got rid if the religious demand to wear the habit, id oppose to it just as much for the same reasons... Islam still has their habit, and as soon as they are no longer religiously mandatory (through a reformation one kind or the other) i will stop attacking the use of a burka or hijab. that however does not mean i think; - the hijab or burka should be illegal - the state should reveal color in religious matters - the burka is not a safety concern - the idea behind the burka is compatible with western values.[/QUOTE] Burqas and hijabs are not "religiously mandatory," and you're expressing your ignorance for even thinking that. I have several classes with Muslim friends from Yemen, Palestine, Egypt, Nigeria and elsewhere, male and female, and only one person out of maybe a dozen wear a hijab. Three of them (that I know of) have tattoos. Most of them smoke cigarettes. Again, [B]hijabs and burqas are not religiously mandatory[/B]. There are many, many Muslim people, particularly in Europe and the United States, who do not wear them and who do not wear any other religious garb.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50983305]The Church of England [i]today[/i] has ecclesiastical courts. In the past they dictated divorce, wills/inheritance, defamation, and so on. Today, they're used to formally interpret canon law [i]unrelated to British legislation[/i] and to punish clergymen and other members of the church. Many Muslim countries that ""have sharia law"" use that law exclusively for things like divorce proceedings and marital disputes, Bangladesh being a good example. England quite literally has a [i]state church[/i] with [i]private courts used to levy extrajudicial punishments on church members[/i]. They use canon law, not civil law or criminal law, and can levy punishments against clergy like simony, heresy, schism, and so on. These are [i]still technically in operation[/i]. Nowadays, ecclesiastical crime refers to misappropriation of donation funds. If someone donates to a church and a clergymember spends 20 grand on a strip club, [i]they are tried in religious courts using a different system of law than any other British court[/i]. Sharia's about as worrying as canon law in the Church of England. [B]Meaning it isn't.[/B][/QUOTE] almost but no cigar... meaning both are just as worrisome and should be abandoned. In order to guarantee a free, secular and liberal society we cannot have parallel courts.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50983032]pop quiz, name any other piece of clothing that is banned in public on the grounds that it's complete concealment of identity in the UK[/QUOTE] I just imagined how it would feel living in a society where your face has to be visible at all times and where that rule was enforced by police. Seems Orwellian. Scary stuff. Do rules really have to be made based on the presumption that everyone could be a criminal out to get you? Do we really live in such a state of fear?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50983312]a person deliberately withholding their person from participating in society but still participating in society is infringing the personal right to confront the people i talk to and to establish their identity. in other words, "i should have a right to see the face of who i am forced to associate with, just as i have the right to face my public accuser." that is his argument.[/QUOTE] When have you ever had the right to establish someone's identity? Does Belgium have some sort of law I'm not aware about where if anyone demands to see your ID you have to show it to them?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50983290]you are expressing implications that are unfounded... the way you structured that reveals you have[B] caricaturised and demonised the opposition [/B]to your argument and are[B] no longer capable of cpmprehending a reasonable argument[/B]. if the last reformation never got rid if the religious demand to wear the habit, id oppose to it just as much for the same reasons... Islam still has their habit, and as soon as they are no longer religiously mandatory (through a reformation one kind or the other) i will stop attacking the use of a burka or hijab. that however does not mean i think; - the hijab or burka should be illegal - the state should reveal color in religious matters - the burka is not a safety concern - the idea behind the burka is compatible with western values.[/QUOTE] I work with a Pakistani Muslim girl, she doesn't wear a burka or hijab, is she therefore a bad Muslim? Are you, presumably a none Muslim, going to tell her, a Muslim, that she's bad at her religion?

anything that makes it impossible to identify someone should be banned i think although i am simplifying the problem greatly so feel free to throw a metaphorical turd at my face

[QUOTE=nickohlus;50983138] By wearing a burqa, by censoring your entire existence essentially, you are actually violating MY freedom of expression in addition to yours, because, as Hitchens puts it, "It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence somebody you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself right to hear something." [url]https://youtu.be/jyoOfRog1EM?t=1m52s[/url] [/QUOTE] I love violating your rights when I use headphones in public and do not make eye contact with anyone. That argument is dumb and entitled as hell. If I don't want to listen to someone, or make contact with them then that's my right.

[QUOTE=343N;50983337]anything that makes it impossible to identify someone should be banned i think although i am simplifying the problem greatly so feel free to throw a metaphorical turd at my face[/QUOTE] What's the point of this post?

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;50983330]I just imagined how it would feel living in a society where your face has to be visible at all times and where that rule was enforced by police. Seems Orwellian. Scary stuff.[/QUOTE] To make things easier we should just have the state dictate we wear blue boiler suits and have our id number tattooed on our forehead.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50983312]a person deliberately withholding their person from participating in society but still participating in society is infringing the personal right to confront the people i talk to and to establish their identity. in other words, "i should have a right to see the face of who i am forced to associate with, just as i have the right to face my public accuser." that is his argument.[/QUOTE] I understand his argument; it is just ridiculous. Your rights do not extend to knowing the identities of strangers, else you might as well argue that a person should be forced to give you their name, their phone number, and any other personal info you demand. You are free to ask, but they are under no obligation to reveal anything about themselves to you that they don't want to-- that includes showing you their face or body.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50983327]Burqas and hijabs are not "religiously mandatory," and you're expressing your ignorance for even thinking that. I have several classes with Muslim friends from Yemen, Palestine, Egypt, Nigeria and elsewhere, male and female, and only one person out of maybe a dozen wear a hijab. Three of them (that I know of) have tattoos. Most of them smoke cigarettes. Again, [B]hijabs and burqas are not religiously mandatory[/B]. There are many, many Muslim people, particularly in Europe and the United States, who do not wear them and who do not wear any other religious garb.[/QUOTE] not sinning is religiously mandatory in the catholic church, marrying for life the same. (or was at some point... its a grey area but officially no pope said devorce is okay) In Muslim countries, the drinking of alcohol drops 20% during the Ramadan... yet abstinence of alcohol is religiously mandatory for Muslims. i don't think you understand what 'religiously mandatory' means... individual muslims deciding to pick and choose does not mean they are no longer 'true' Muslims, you cannot take away their identity like that... But also it does not mean that those mandates don't apply to them according to Muslim mandate... For example, the pope made a decree that the habit is NO LONGER NECESSARY AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED ON A RELIGIOUS BASIS BY ANYONE. Therefore, the habit is no longer religiously mandated by anyone believing the pope has that power. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50983346]I understand his argument; it is just ridiculous. Your rights do not extend to knowing the identities of strangers, else you might as well argue that a person should be forced to give you their name, their phone number, and any other personal info you demand. You are free to ask, but they are under no obligation to reveal anything about themselves to you that they don't want to-- that includes showing you their face or body.[/QUOTE] I agree, at the very least id say i have the right to remain anonymous in public if i want.

[QUOTE=nickohlus;50983138]By wearing a burqa, by censoring your entire existence essentially, you are actually violating MY freedom of expression in addition to yours, because, as Hitchens puts it, "It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence somebody you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself right to hear something."[/QUOTE] So what your saying is..... you totally missed the point of that quote? Like im sorry but you literally totally missed it. I mean you could even use what Hitchens was saying against you. You're advocating silencing people's right to expression which is PRECICELY what Hitchens was trying to make a point against. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50983349]not sinning is religiously mandatory in the catholic church, marrying for life the same. (or was at some point... its a grey area but officially no pope said devorce is okay) In Muslim countries, the drinking of alcohol drops 20% during the Ramadan... yet abstinence of alcohol is religiously mandatory for Muslims. i don't think you understand what 'religiously mandatory' means... individual muslims deciding to pick and choose does not mean they are no longer 'true' Muslims, you cannot take away their identity like that... But also it does not mean that those mandates don't apply to them according to Muslim mandate... For example, the pope made a decree that the habit is NO LONGER NECESSARY AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED ON A RELIGIOUS BASIS BY ANYONE. Therefore, the habit is no longer religiously mandated by anyone believing the pope has that power.[/QUOTE] So how do you consolidate this with the fact that the vast majority of Muslim women do not wear a Burka?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50983349]not sinning is religiously mandatory in the catholic church, marrying for life the same. (or was at some point... its a grey area but officially no pope said devorce is okay) In Muslim countries, the drinking of alcohol drops 20% during the Ramadan... yet abstinence of alcohol is religiously mandatory for Muslims. i don't think you understand what 'religiously mandatory' means... individual muslims deciding to pick and choose does not mean they are no longer 'true' Muslims, you cannot take away their identity like that... But also it does not mean that those mandates don't apply to them according to Muslim mandate... For example, the pope made a decree that the habit is NO LONGER NECESSARY AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED ON A RELIGIOUS BASIS BY ANYONE. Therefore, the habit is no longer religiously mandated by anyone believing the pope has that power. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] I agree, at the very least id say i have the right to remain anonymous in public if i want.[/QUOTE] It's not mandatory, though. Nowhere in the text of the Quran does it say "all women, when seen by men other than their immediate family or their husband, must wear a scarf to cover their face exactly in this exact way." Some groups, countries, and people interpret the modesty verses for women in the Quran to mean "can't go outside unless they're completely covered," but there is no central religious authority for "Islam" saying that. Some people, like the Queen of Jordan, interpret it very differently and insist that the modesty rules are relative to surrounding society, and others still insist that the rules were specific to Muhammad's wives and not all women. Islam is not like Catholicism. Islam is like Christianity. There are many, many sects in many, many different areas across the globe. If an Iranian imam issues a command that women are to wear a burqa at all times, a Muslim in India or the United States [i]has no reason to listen to the guy[/i]. You have fundamental misunderstandings about how religion operates. Research this shit.

There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy from people claiming that it's bad to withhold identity in a public setting whilst posting under a pseudonym themselves.

If it's not legal for me to walk around with a slipknot mask on, it shouldn't be legal to wear a face veil. Heavy Metal is my religion.

[QUOTE=shozamar;50983395]There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy from people claiming that it's bad to withhold identity in a public setting whilst posting under a pseudonym themselves.[/QUOTE] I feel like people don't reallllly think that. Like it seems like maybe they haven't thought it through, and are just trying to use it as an argument as ammunition against something they already decided they don't like.

Three pages in about an hour. I'm impressed.

[QUOTE=shozamar;50983395]There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy from people claiming that it's bad to withhold identity in a public setting whilst posting under a pseudonym themselves.[/QUOTE] facepunch is not a public setting, there is no hypocrisy. if this was a public setting then admins would not be legally capable of banning me and i could call the police if they did, also i would have the guaranteed legal protection of free speech to the same degree i have in a public place and so forth.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;50983440]I feel like people don't reallllly think that. Like it seems like maybe they haven't thought it through, and are just trying to use it as an argument as ammunition against something they already decided they don't like.[/QUOTE] It's 100% trying to find a justification for a position they've already taken a side on out of bigotry. If they saw someone disembarking from a motorcycle wearing a blacked-out helmet, would they be [i]uncomfortable[/i]? If it was winter and they saw a man with a beanie pulled down over his forehead and his face buried in his jacket with nothing but his eyebrows and nose clearly visible, would they be [i]uncomfortable[/i]? If someone was walking down the street wearing large sunglasses with headphones in, unavailable to the rest of the world to "engage in conversation with," would they be [I]uncomfortable[/I]? Nope. But if they're wearing a niqab, they're [i]impeding on my right to talk to them without feeling uncomfortable[/i]. These guys gotta use public transportation because I can list a dozen things that have made me [I]way[/I] more uncomfortable than someone wearing a niqab or a burqa.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;50983357] So how do you consolidate this with the fact that the vast majority of Muslim women do not wear a Burka?[/QUOTE] I dont have to, thats up to the Muslims themselves to do. but if i would, i would do it the same as i would with devout Christians killing themselves or taking the Lords name in vane. Since i'm not a hypocrite.